From the very outset the administration's Iraqi oil policies have been a disaster. There are many such as Alan Greenspan who adjure that oil was the reason for the invasion. If that is indeed the case, the priorities it imposed perverted our mission from the very outset, whether it was detailing our troops to protect the oil ministry while Baghdad's great museums and their irreplaceable archaeological and historical treasures were being looted. It continued with the administration's immediate appointments of oil patch viceroys such as former Shell Oil CEO Phil Carroll, with a clear mandate to guide Iraq's oil policies and to steer Iraq back into the waiting arms of America's economic enemy, OPEC. "Iraq was a founding member of OPEC and the truth is that Iraq will find its way into OPEC," Carroll was to advise us on CNBC on May 29, 2003.
Policies that cost the nation thousands in lives and billions in treasure. Not only have thousands been wounded and maimed, billions expended on the war, but since the invasion the price of oil has quadrupled. The quadrupling of prices is costing American consumers alone some $1.5 billion/day transfer to oil interests, or some $575 billion a year. A large measure of this enormous extra burden can be laid at the feet of this administration who by their actions in Iraq signaled to oil producers throughout the world that they were not adverse to higher oil prices given their plumbing for Iraq to join OPEC. And of course OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, took the ball and ran with it to the $100/bbl goal line and then some.
These policies were put in place by an administration whose leadership, now some six years into the Iraqi quicksand and exploding oil prices, is led by man whose mastery of the complexities of the issue can be codified in the mind numbing statement: "$4 a gallon gasoline?...I hadn't heard that".
But the cynicism, the outrage doesn't stop here. With prices bursting past $100 a barrel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, grown fat, self assured and arrogant let it be known that they would not increase production in spite of calls to do so by the International Energy Agency, and no matter how muted, by Washington as well.
So here we are with a deteriorating economy, the oil companies more prosperous than ever, while American families find themselves increasingly financially exposed, and then comes the 'coup de grace':
In anticipation of the OPEC meeting this week, the Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani signaled his respect for President Bush and the thousands of service men sacrificed to bring some semblance of stability to his country and to permit Iraq's National Oil Company to go on with its business of producing oil. To quote him:
"We in Iraq think that keeping the production the same as it is and monitoring the market is the best decision. In general, all signs say there is not a shortage in the international crude oil market and, therefore, to ask OPEC to increase production because of the prices now is not justified."
So there you have it. If we went into Iraq to make the oil companies rich beyond their wildest dreams, to make the oil producing nations so wealthy that they have the ability to buy up our national assets at will, we have succeeded brilliantly. As for President Bush, his legacy will unquestionably entail, "He made the oil patch rich and in doing so began the dismantling of America's economic might and achievement". As for Iraq, another "Surge", anyone?
Ain't that just peachy?
.... and this administration was elected twice. No quid pro quo was even extracted from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others for defending them either.
Genius planning? Brilliant strategy?
Now it is time to get on with recovering from the result.......
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/yyyyyyyy-yyyyyyyyy.html
..... and it's time to be diligent, and set some rules about the trillions that have been transfered offshore, but are looking to come back with different clothes on......>>>
http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/02/america-for-sale.html
First, there is plenty of oil. Look at deep drilling, oil sands, the Caspian, Russia, coast of Vietnam, Gulf Coast, Iraq, etc. New oil is being found all the time. Oil companies have even re-established the Bakersfield oil field and are pumping oil for $17 a barrel there. Oil should be in a range of $25 to a max of $60 a barrel. Canadian oil sands can be produced for $9 a barrel.
Second, big oil and OPEC are monopolies, plain and simple. No matter what commodities traders do, bid oil up, or down, its always the same people making the money. Traders may make money, but the big dollars ultimately go to the same large companies and OPEC.
Third, oil prices are always higher under republican presidents. One anomaly is 1979 under Carter. Each time though, the price rise is driven by a softening dollar. The first time, Nixon took the US off Bretton Woods, let the dollar float and we had a big devaluation leading to the 1973 oil shock. Also, the Vietnam war was pumping massive amounts of dollars out. To end this inflation/ stagnation cycle, Carter finally appointed Volker who pushed interest rates up to kill the hangover from dollar devaluation and the Vietnam war. We have the same situation right now. But as now, it was created by a republican president. The problem now though, is we have massive debt we didn't have in the 19070s and we made things. You cannot create wealth without manufacturing. That economics 101.
Fourth, the industrial mid-west always sees a rise in unemployment when oil prices are up. I went back to 1970 and checked Michigan's unemployment statistics to 2005. Higher oil prices correlate with a lagging effect and higher unemployment in Michigan. Also, republican presidents parallel higher oil prices and higher unemployment in Michigan. Oh, those great Reagan years, Michigan averaged 8% unemployment.
So, I guess my point is, republicans alway lead to higher oil prices and trouble for the industrial economy, at least since 1970.
Why is it that Halliburton and Exxon rolling in their profits is so offensive to libs, but the ConAgra and ADM execs rolling in theirs aren't?
Got it?
They were ashamed of Condi? There was an appearance of some government complicity?
There was some government complicity in the record profits taken by big oil?
Big George, Little George, Dead-eye Dick, and Condi. . . all oil people. Think the price of oil will diminish under a Democrat, at least at the margin?
Market theory cannot account for the price of oil but Monopoly Theory explains it very well indeed. Monopoly theory says that competition is wasteful and that given a lack of regulation capital will be concentrated into fewer and bigger hands. And once the concentration is complete the monopoly will set the price at what ever point they think the market will bear. And to Hell with anyone else (See John D. Rockerfeller and Standard Oil, Texas Railroad Commission, or the ENTIRE HISTORY of the Oil business since its creation.)
Although I think some of this is Saudi Arabia's getting back at the Chimp-In-Chief for ignoring their advice and instituting the Catastrofuck next door.
Yes, the dealers are evil. Yes, they will sell their junk to us at the maximum price that we can still afford to pay short of us going broke. The dealer doesn’t care if we have to go rob somebody (War), pawn all of our possessions (devalue our $), or live on mac & cheese, as long as we come up with the cash.
What is an addict to do? Whine? Beg? Threaten? Or heaven forbid, go into rehab. As long as our government, Mr Learsey, Big oil, et al , tell us there is lots of “smack” and that we are entitled to our lifestyle, we will never get free.
Now all they want is power. And with America on its knees...(Like Bush with Jeff Gannon)...power is what they're getting...can anyone say.."new World Order"?? Remember that one from Daddy Bush??
Welcome to the New World....